Literature DB >> 20429762

Mammographic findings of women recalled for diagnostic work-up in digital versus screen-film mammography in a population-based screening program.

Seppo Lipasti1, Ahti Anttila, Martti Pamilo.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Limited information is available concerning differences in the radiological findings of women recalled for diagnostic work-up in digital mammography (DM) versus screen-film mammography (SFM) screening.
PURPOSE: To compare the radiological findings, their positive predictive values (PPVs) for cancer and other process indicators of DM screening performed by computed radiography (CR) technology and SFM screening in a population-based program.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The material consisted of women, 50-59 years of age, who were invited for screening: 30 153 women with DM in 2007-2008 and 32 939 women with SFM in 1999-2000. The attendance rate was 77.7% (23 440) in the DM arm and 83.8% (27 593) in the SFM arm. In the DM arm, 1.71% of those screened (401) and in the SFM arm 1.59% (438) were recalled for further work-up. The images resulting in the recall were classified as: 1) tumor-like mass, 2) parenchymal distortion/asymmetry, 3) calcifications, and 4) combination of mass and calcifications. The distributions of the various radiological findings and their PPVs for cancer were compared in both study groups. The recall rates, cancer detection rates, test specificities, and PPVs of the DM and SFM groups were also compared.
RESULTS: Women were recalled for diagnostic work-up most often due to tumor-like mass. It was more common in SFM (1.08% per woman screened) than in DM (0.93%). The second most common finding was parenchymal distortion and asymmetry, more often in DM (0.58%) than in SFM (0.37%). Calcifications were the third most common finding. DM exposed calcifications more often (0.49%) than SFM (0.26%). The PPVs for cancer of the recalls were higher in DM than in SFM in all subgroups of radiological findings. The test specificities were similar (DM 98.9%, SFM 98.8%). Significantly more cancers were detected by DM (cancer detection rate 0.623% per woman screened, n=146) than by SFM (cancer detection rate 0.406% per woman screened, n=112). The PPVs for cancer of all recalls for diagnostic work-up were significantly higher in DM (36%) than in SFM (26%).
CONCLUSION: In DM women were recalled for diagnostic work-up more often for calcifications, parenchymal distortions, and asymmetries than in SFM. In the case of tumor-like masses, more women were recalled in SFM. DM detected more cancers than SFM, and the PPVs for cancer were higher in DM than in SFM in all subgroups of radiological findings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20429762     DOI: 10.3109/02841851003691961

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Radiol        ISSN: 0284-1851            Impact factor:   1.990


  6 in total

1.  Differences in radiological patterns, tumour characteristics and diagnostic precision between digital mammography and screen-film mammography in four breast cancer screening programmes in Spain.

Authors:  Laia Domingo; Anabel Romero; Francesc Belvis; Mar Sánchez; Joana Ferrer; Dolores Salas; Josefa Ibáñez; Alfonso Vega; Francesc Ferrer; M Soledad Laso; Francesc Macià; Xavier Castells; Maria Sala
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-05-11       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Impact of the digitalisation of mammography on performance parameters and breast dose in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme.

Authors:  Lore Timmermans; An De Hauwere; Klaus Bacher; Hilde Bosmans; Kim Lemmens; Luc Bleyen; Erik Van Limbergen; Patrick Martens; Andre Van Steen; Griet Mortier; Koen Van Herck; Hubert Thierens
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-05-10       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography.

Authors:  Hilde Bosmans; An De Hauwere; Kim Lemmens; Federica Zanca; Hubert Thierens; Chantal Van Ongeval; Koen Van Herck; Andre Van Steen; Patrick Martens; Luc Bleyen; Gretel Vande Putte; Eliane Kellen; Griet Mortier; Erik Van Limbergen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-05-21       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Calling all calcifications: a retrospective case control study.

Authors:  Anand K Narayan; Delia M Keating; Elizabeth A Morris; Victoria L Mango
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 1.605

5.  Simplifying Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System classification of mammograms with pure suspicious calcifications.

Authors:  Gisela Lg Menezes; Gonneke Ao Winter-Warnars; Eva L Koekenbier; Emma J Groen; Helena M Verkooijen; Ruud M Pijnappel
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2017-07-10       Impact factor: 2.136

6.  Impact of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Film-Screen Mammography in Population Screening: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Rachel Farber; Nehmat Houssami; Sally Wortley; Gemma Jacklyn; Michael L Marinovich; Kevin McGeechan; Alexandra Barratt; Katy Bell
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 13.506

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.